The Thing Prequel

I'm surprised few have yet to make a topic on this. For those who don't know, the 1950s gave us a novela (short book) called "Who Goes There?," about a bunch of explorers in the cold Artic running into an alien that can assemulate its victims. That became "The Thing from Another World" and then remade into John Carpenter's horror classic "The Thing." Not only one of my favorite films, but also captures the paranoid factor of who we truly are (at least in the Carpenter film).

For a while, there was some speculation that it was to be remade and now we get a hearing that its supposed to be a prequel. Let me elaborate. In the Carpenter film, the alien was discovered from a destroyed Norwiegian camp site that is said to have come into contact with the creature. That is what the prequel is centered around. Showing what happened to everyone before Kurt Russel had to yell a hard "F You Too" to this beast. Now, in order to understand my basic thought on this, I decided to split this into a basic pro and con cenario. Again, I'm aware the movie has yet to be released, but this is just basic thought twoard how I feel to certain things.

PRO- First off, the idea of the movie is capture a bigger paranoia with having a mix of English and Norweigian people. It adds some interesting commentary in terms of working with others that you are not accustomed to with those of a different background and customs.

The director has said that there will be a great amount of practicle effects and use CGI when needed to touch up some elements. He said this was due to the thought of an all CGI creature would seperate itself from the original that highly based on organic effects. This I appluad for, even thought its really a technical thing, because I'm tired of films that enrich themselves with computer effects. The last film I recall that had an equal balance of of CGI and practical effects that was executed perfectly was Independance Day (aside from its flaws, its ok in my books). Seeing a monster being done with anamatronics and all sorts of mechanical details is a breath of savory fresh air to me.

CONS- While it does have some promise, there are a few things that bug me. First off is how its titled "The Thing." It seems odd how its a prequel to movie from the 80s and yet it has the same title. Something tells me its trying to bank on the original or they were too lazy to call it "THING - A NEW BEGINNING."

Also, the trailer does present itself to be the type of horror movie where they load it to the brim with jump scares. This is problematic as I feel the true scares should come from atmosphere, villians, and the phycological perspective that it could happen to you.

There are somethings with the alien they plan to do I kinda question like how its discovered and some things there were spoiled in rumor form.


In the original Thing, we never get a good idea what this monster looks like. It was said in the prequel, we get to see its true form. This decision was made after the director looked over some designs and was amazed by them. If they are that good, hats to them. But if uninspired, all the mystery of what this strange blob will feel ruined for me.

By far, those are the only elements I can think of, but even if they are basic nitpick, I intend to walk in with an open mind and see what it give its audence for what its worth. While it does give some promise, it does have some bits that are a tad questionable. Weither or not it will work will be determend this October.

Adding to the PRO column is that Mary Elizabeth Winstead is incredibly bad-ass.

Adding to CON: THISISUNNECESSARYANDIFTHEYFUCKTHISUPIKILLABITCH

I'd take a prequel or a sequel over a remake any day, but I do hope they do something unique in this new movie, rather than rehash all of John Carpenter's tricks. *looks suspiciously at the part with the husky dog trying to chew through the cage*

It looks interesting, and as Moviebuffmel90 pointed out, the idea of a war of the cultures playing into the mix would be a nice bit of added intensity. But, again as MBM90 said, a poor monster design will ruin the series. In fact, I really hope they DON'T show the original form of the monster because there's an air of mystery about the monster that I see will only be ruined the same way that "Cloverfield" was ruined when enough people finally saw the giant guineapig monster. I'd prefer to leave the creature's real identity in my own imagination.

Its funny because originally they were going to have the creature in the ice block be seen in silhouette. I thought that was a great idea giving a mysterious feel to the creature. As said, the director looked at the design suggestions and instead oppted for a view of the monster. Still, I do agree with the aspect of how something matters as best left to the mind. The less you see, the more scary it can be.

I agree with Kenny, plus i have no high expectations or hopes for this thing to begin with

This is why I never find Clive Barker's stuff to be scary - he isn't very subtle with how he handles his horrors in his writing... or romance, but I'll get to that later on in the year. He explains everything in graphic detail, so next to nothing is left to the imagination. His work Mister B. Gone was actually really good because it was much more subtle than his other books, but his novels like The Great and Secret Show or Everville leave more to be desired since he explains nearly everything in great detail... like his sex-scenes. They are supposed to be romantic, but it instead feels like I just read an excerpt from a softcore porno.

With that unintelligable ramble sitting there, I hope that this incarnation of The Thing doesn't go down that same route and systematically rape everything John Carpenter established in his pants-browning 1980's version of the story.